This post has been up for 10 minutes and I am shocked none on the far right, today's Republican Party hasn't called you a Homo yet!
;)

Today's GOP is all about big over-bearing and over-spending government. They want to tell people how they should live and have become as intrusive on one's personal Liberties as the Dems.

you guys need to find a REAL competitor to the white house and RUN HIM. Oklahoma does not allow for a 3rd party OR for write ins.... so, make that fool run as a Republican so we can vote him/her in.

11-08-2012, 03:45 PM

ARay11

Quote:

Originally Posted by HPL

Not so much out of touch as not really holding the primary conservative position of keeping government out of peoples' business. I want the government to busy itself working on things that are its correct purview like national defense, trade agreements, etc., and stay out of people's personal affairs.

i very much agree. sorry the initial post was intended to show the lack of moral compass in the country right now. Obama was not re elected due to national defense position, trade agreements, or foreign affairs capability... or for that matter homeland economics... He was elected based on the moral compass of the country. He has women's votes because he panders to them free bc and abortions. He has gay votes because he panders to them their marital rights.

whichever side you're on.... it's those issues that moved the vote.

11-08-2012, 03:46 PM

PamK

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARay11

Being pro-life and anti-samesex marriage makes you out of touch. That is a sad statement all to itself. . The guy who has it "right" loses to the guy who panders to all. The Democrat's platform is so wide open you could drive a mack truck thru it and they would never get accused of hitching a ride. Now, it is suggested that Republicans do the same "or else". I'm not saying its false...only that it is a sad state of affairs.

And sometimes it might not just be about being pro life it is how the issue is adressed. Talking about legitimate rape turns many women off even those that are pro life.

11-08-2012, 03:51 PM

JS

[QUOTE=ARay11;1031416]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JS

This from the party who once professed government should stay out of one's personal lives?

What's more personal than who you marry?nothing
And how does someone else's choice of a same sex spouse threaten my marriage?it doesnt

personally, I dont care who you marry. I believe government should get completely out of all of it...gay or straight. No more marriage deduction on income taxes, no more regulation on who you can name as your beneficiary (inlcuding for SSI), your personal caregiver, or add to your insurance policy.
Marriage is between two people and their God (or I suppose could say also lack thereof).
As for abortion.... well, there's a whole other argument about that. I think someone already said if it's okay to kill your child while its inside you, why not after it's out? Yes, life begins at conception. There is no scientific argument to that. You only have to decide how far along life has to be before YOU call it alive. Yes, it is safer now that it's legal...fewer women are dying via botched back door abortions.

My point was that the moral compass of our society has shifted. Sorry if I didnt get that across properly.

I respect your religious values and your morality. But we cannot and should not legislate morality. If we impose a specific set of morals on someone else who's will we choose to be the "approved" morals? That is not the role of government. IMO

In the history of man, how many wars have been fought over religious zealotry? Better question is "how many have NOT?".

JS

11-08-2012, 03:51 PM

Franco

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARay11

you guys need to find a REAL competitor to the white house and RUN HIM. Oklahoma does not allow for a 3rd party OR for write ins.... so, make that fool run as a Republican so we can vote him/her in.

The Libertarian party is working on breaking the two party monopoly. When your state's Libertarian Party grows to 5% of the state's voters, the law will change.

And yes, we are working on a putting forth candidates that represents this coutry's traditional ideals of Liberty, Peace, Fraternity and a Balanced Budget Amendment. We have some young politicians that will also look good on camera;) Just wait and see in 2014 and 2016!

Here in La. with Jindal's time as Gov just about up, we don't want Sen. David Vitter as our next Gov. as that is who the state's GOP committee wants to run. I expect the state's Libertarian Party to put up a serious challenger to Vitter.

11-08-2012, 03:59 PM

ARay11

[QUOTE=JS;1031422]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARay11

I respect your religious values and your morality. But we cannot and should not legislate morality. If we impose a specific set of morals on someone else who's will we choose to be the "approved" morals? That is not the role of government. IMO

In the history of man, how many wars have been fought over religious zealotry? Better question is "how many have NOT?".

JS

I am not advocating we legislate morality. It cannot be done. I am simply stating that the moral compass has shifted and will likely not return and THAT is sad.

Moral values and ethics are instilled at home. If they are not, that is an instillation itself.

11-08-2012, 04:06 PM

ARay11

Quote:

Originally Posted by PamK

And sometimes it might not just be about being pro life it is how the issue is adressed. Talking about legitimate rape turns many women off even those that are pro life.

I agree. Two men said some incredibly stupid things in the midst of an election that, I believe, cost Romney female votes. We had a congressman here NOT achieve re-election because he ran an ad likening the government to an octopus "reaching into the most private parts of a woman's life" ewww!!! I didnt care who he was....couldnt get me to vote for him .

11-08-2012, 04:30 PM

luvmylabs23139

Quote:

Originally Posted by MooseGooser

My Mother was a WW2 bride.

She was British. You couldnt look at her and tell if she was legal or Illegal either... She had white skin..
She came here,, never became a citizen. Had a green card all the 50 yrs she was here.She always worked. and paid taxes, SS..
ect She never voted...

There are folks that come here now that DEMAND care, benifts,, jobs,, and Rights garunteed by the constitution of the United states..... many vote illegally.. many get paid illegally under the table..

I dont believe the country SHOULD pander to them... If they follow laws,, and become a citizen ,, then thats a different story...

I will not vote to reward illegal (criminal) people.

I will not allow contrators who do work at my home, to have undocumented workers at my property..
I ask this question before they start the job.. If I find out different... Well......

I have to agree 100% with Gooser. As many of you know my parents brought me here as a child legally.
My attitude towards any type of amnasty has nothing to do with race and everything to do with playing by the rules. It also burns me up that a person can come here illegally and then if they have a kid that kid gets all the freebies. It's just the same as someone robbing a bank and giving the money to their kid. I doubt any of you would say well the kid didn't rob the bank so let them keep the money.

In his latest dictatorial move, Obama has completely ignored the rule of law, the Constitution, Congress, and the will of the people by granting amnesty to an estimated 800,000 illegal aliens between the ages of 16 and 30. In an election year – anyone unclear about his motives? Anyone naive enough to believe his stated reasons? Anyone simple enough to believe that the parents of these “children” won’t be next?

Let’s pretend for a minute that he is not doing this manuever to try to secure the Hispanic and Latino vote. And let’s pretend that he’s just a really swell guy with no self-serving intentions. WHERE in the Constitution does it state that a President can unilaterally grant amnesty to an entire block of people? These are not refugees seeking political asylum – they are ILLEGAL ALIENS. They are not “undocumented citizens” or any other politically correct clap trap the left has come up with trying to hide what these people really are – by definition of federal law they are CRIMINALS. They are in this country illegally.Whether their parents brought them here or not is not important. If the Federal Government did its job in the first place, the parents and the children would have been turned around at the border or summarily deported when it was discovered they were not in the country legally. You cannot be a law-abiding citizen if by your very presence in this country you are a criminal.The United States has one of the most lenient and liberal paths to citizenship in the entire world and Barack Hussein Obama just said to everyone who wants to come here, ‘skip the formality and just come on in’. Red Rover Red Rover send everyone right over. Anyone who doubts that this opens the door for full amnesty – we can’t be breaking up families – is living in Fantasyland without the E ticket. Once the illegal aliens are given the rights of citizenship, (and that will come, the work permit is just phase one) the next step is granting instant citizenship to any of their relatives who want to come here. Afterall, only an evil conservative would want to stop a family from being together.Spare me the “he’s just giving them work permits” nonsense. This is a purely political maneuver by a man who panders to special interest groups in an election year to bolster his pathetic numbers. First it was the gays in the military, then the gays who wanted to marry each other, it just goes on and on. There isn’t a sincere or honest cell in his body.But let’s get back to the critical point here – as President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama does not have the right or the authority to do this. Period. I recall when Glenn Beck stated three years ago (back in the CNN days) that Obama would make Congress irrelevant. We have arrived folks; we have arrived.

11-08-2012, 05:53 PM

road kill

[quote=js;1031422]

Quote:

Originally Posted by aray11

i respect your religious values and your morality. But we cannot and should not legislate morality. If we impose a specific set of morals on someone else who's will we choose to be the "approved" morals? That is not the role of government. Imo

in the history of man, how many wars have been fought over religious zealotry? Better question is "how many have not?".

Js

Poor morals are still morals, and that is what is being legislated.

According to my wife ( a woman) the "Democrats marketed to women like they were idiots."